I’m amazed at my own capacity for stupidity.
Since the beginning of the year, I’ve been writing long blog posts, pretending that New Music Strategies is not a blog, but is instead something larger, or more weighty. And it’s given me the opportunity to work through some fundamentals in a more indepth way, but I have done in the place of writing something more blog-like.
Let me tell you why I did it, why I’m not stopping, but why I’m changing the approach a little.
Why I did it:
In order to think, I need to do it out loud. I work through these things and sometimes I get some really helpful feedback. The feedback that tells me I’m wrong is the most helpful feedback – even (or especially) when I consider that feedback and decide that I had actually got it right, but perhaps didn’t explain it as clearly as I would have liked.
In the past 18 months, there’s been a multiplicity of blogs springing up, on which reasonably intelligent people say reasonably intelligent things about the online environment as it relates to popular music. I went from being one of very few to one of very many (though of course, I was far from the first). So as not to duplicate the efforts of others (or be shown up as inadequate when compared to how thorough and on-to-it some of them are), I took the blog in a different direction: one of analysis rather than reportage.
Why I’m not stopping:
I still think there’s an abundance of great people saying interesting things in a reactive fashion to what’s going on in the music business. Just check out those sidebar links.
I think I might be one of the only people talking about music online in the way that I do: from a broadly media ecology perspective. From the feedback I’ve had at seminars and conferences recently, in consultations and via personal feedback, it seems that to some people, that’s useful stuff.
Why I’m changing my approach:
I spend all day telling people about the internet and how to make the most of it. I prioritise regularity and brevity. I tell them to make the most of the long tail and put as much out there as you can – even if it’s not 100% finished or right. And yet, I agonise over these lengthy epistles and one comes out once a week if we’re lucky.
In other words, New Music Strategies may have been aiming for a deeper understanding of the online environment, but hadn’t been actually putting any of those understandings into practice.
So – expect that to change a little.
Now what?
Of course, I’m still going to be doing the long, bookish thought pieces. I’m still going to be steering clear from reporting ‘this thing happened’ or ‘look at what’s happening to such-and-such a company’ – but rather than just stay in a linear path, where the next blog post follows on structurally and thematically from the one before, I’m just going to post what I think as I think it.
There’ll be some constructed, indepth, analytical pieces – and there’ll be some observation and anecdote as well. Might as well practice what I preach, right?
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/02/10/not-understanding-the-internet/trackback/
12 Comments
I applaud your willingness to change direction. I find your blog to be very helpful, but less so since the “I’m going to write a blog as if it were a book” phase. I think the new direction is a nice balance between the two. The blogosphere is full of news reporting, but very short on analysis so I think your new approach will greatly increase the value derived from reading your blog. Did you scrap the idea of doing sponsored posts?
Great to read that you’re not ending your blog or going the “me too” route and reporting new media news. I read your blog for the ideas and interpretations you present. Keep up the good work and the innovative thoughts. You’ve got a fan in me.
“I’m just going to post what I think as I think it.” There has to be some machine that can help with that?
I hadn’t scrapped the idea of the sponsored post – I just haven’t been chasing it, and recently, I’ve been turning down all approaches.
Nothing’s really struck me as the kind of thing I can 100% get behind, and I’ve been trying to keep reviews over on New Music Ideas, which is also getting a rethink right now.
I tend to try stuff out, see what seems to work, and add and drop things as I figure it out. Right now, it feels like a lot of advertising on this site isn’t really appropriate. But I could change my mind on that at any moment…
I certainly applaud brevity. Some of your other posts have been too intimidating to read while at work. I looking forward to experiencing your new approach.
Andrew,
I thought of this later… Instead of the book analogy.. How about a movie – where scenes from the middle and the end are often shot prior to scenes from the beginning. You still end up with a film.
Regarding Sponsored posts:
If you whole heartedly believe in a product it makes sense to post it. But if its an income generating post, would you be comfortable being forever branded with that relationship? The posts you put out are cached and will exist forever somewhere online.
What if because of your sponsored post for 1 product closes the door to another sponsor. Or what if you are paid to post about a product and that contract negates you from posting about another product that you fully believe in?
Disclosure regarding your paid posts will clear us as readers on the front end. But on the back end of it, you might be limiting your potential, or the value you’ll be able to share on this blog.
If you do sponsored posts, make sure they are not looking to limit the content or type of content you are allowed to cover going forward. Or that you won’t have to edit the type of content you’ve written about in the past…
I have found all your posts worthwhile to read and some of them extremely useful. I applaud your ability to step back from your own creation (NMS), self-analyze it and your willingness to change / adapt.
I am anxious to have a read of the Ridinghood rebutle! And I am also anxious to see what comes next in your evolving web-ring.
I have also linked to a site (unsprungmedia.com) via a Newswire post here and wondered what your take might be on Bruce’s take? I am intrigued by his ideas, especially concerning the “FAT Packs” as a viable digital format(?) or should I call it a digital vehicle? (I can’t claim to be so smart as to label these things properly just yet.)
Thanks and keep up the good work.
JG
I can’t say I blame you. I could see this effort struggling from a long way off. When you get right down to it, maybe this is less about whether your aspirations to delve into a complex issue is a good fit for the blog format, and more about the blog format as it stands being too limiting for anything accept dispatches from the part of the brain responsible for quick impressions and shallow interpretations.
Let’s not kid ourselves, the average blog is little more than an echo chamber and I know that’s just fine to a lot of people. However the reader’s consensus that brevity and ‘a quick lite read’ is always a good thing is a little disconcerting to me. When I hear you describe the direction you wish to take, what immediately comes to mind is Seth Godin’s popular blog which I read quite regularly, however the general tone of his posts is “see this new thing here, well it just proves what I’ve been saying all along,” in short, spin-doctoring.
Don’t get me wrong, Godin’s blog is entertaining and often useful (and even valid since the reader can judge the merit of his argument), but I wish there was another way to engage other thinkers in the online world that didn’t have such thin context.
What you were trying to do, and to your credit, do it properly, is a lot of work. Since your time is limited I guess your conclusions are understandable. What gets to me is the overwhelming amount of satisfaction with the blogging status quo out there that perhaps reflects the inherit self-serving careerism that seems to propel the blog-o-sphere. I’m so out of touch I’m probably the only one that thinks ‘careerism’ has negative connotations. In comparison to me, maybe you understand the Internet too well.
One thing that interests me is how weblogs often fail to follow “cookie-cutter” rules, at least when it comes to what works and does not work with a readership.
One weblog is favored for its long think pieces. Another weblog is popular because it offers bite-sized discussion nuggets with little dashes of personality. Another weblog is popular because it is pithy. There is a lot of stylistic variation within the weblogs I enjoy reading.
I think that a series of short posts which can, when merited, build upon one another, is a way to get the advantages of the “think piece” without the “burden for commenters” that some think pieces involve.
Your weblog has built an audience and has interesting things to say. As it “serves a purpose” in the old-fashioned sense, all you need do is run it in a way that’s fun for you and easy for you to maintain. The death of individual weblogs, I suggest, is when they burden their author too much. Your suggested revision in approach looks to me like a good defense against burn-out–while reserving your right to think-piece at will.
Hi Andrew,
I personally agree with you on the sponsored post-policyâ€â€you should only endorse products you support 90-100%. That said, if your aim is to be an authority in the field, I feel that copywriting somewhat decreases trustworthiness and hence that goal. Surely, there must be other ways to make money from expertise? Adverts, fine, though I would prefer them on the sidebar and not from Google, even sponsorships on the sidebar are fine. But I think your main revenue should come from consulting or other kinds of practical application of what is being “preached.”
Just my two cents. I don’t know who came up with the brilliant idea of advertising, but it has far from benefited the quality of media.
Hey Andrew I found out about your website via another websites side links. I’ve been reading daily ever since. I love your style of writing in it’s current format. I think you should only change things if you feel it will benefit the quality of your work or your compensation for your work. But I personally, have yet to comment on any thing you’ve written, I’ve just been reading everything and learning from it. I think you provide an amazing service here online. Either way, I know you’ll make a decision that’s best for you and your readership. I agree with Vincent van Wylick on financial compensation. I think you should maybe try to look into some sort of consultation service or maybe even speaking engagements(See Gerd Leonhard). Your ideas are much more creative than the other people I read about and hear from online. Good luck and Peace.